Peacemakers SIX MONTHS THAT CHANGED THE WORLD: THE PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE OF 1919. Margaret MacMillan

8/13/2019 Peacemakers SIX MONTHS THAT CHANGED THE WORLD: THE PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE OF 1919. Margaret Mac…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/peacemakers-six-months-that-changed-the-world-the-paris-peace-conference-of 1/65

Professor Margaret MacMillanUNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

SIX MONTHSTHAT

CHANGED THE

WORLD:THE PARISPEACE

CONFERENCE OF 1919

COURSE GUIDE



Six Months

That Changed the World:The Paris Peace Conference of 1919

Professor Margaret MacMillanUniversity of Toronto

Recorded Books™ is a trademark of

Recorded Books, LLC. All rights reserved.



Six Months That Changed the World:

The Paris Peace Conference of 1919

Professor Margaret MacMillan

Executive Producer

John J. Alexander

Executive Editor

Donna F. Carnahan

RECORDING

Producer - David Markowitz

Director - Matthew Cavnar

COURSE GUIDE

Editor - James Gallagher

Design - Edward White

Lecture content ©2003 by Margaret MacMillan

Course guide ©2003 by Recorded Books, LLC

72003 by Recorded Books, LLC

Cover image: “Council of Four” at the Versailles Peace Conference: Lloyd George,

Vittorio Emanuele Orlando, Georges Clemenceau, and Woodrow Wilson © National Archives

©2003 by Recorded Books, LLC

#UT015 ISBN: 978-1-4025-4765-2

All beliefs and opinions expressed in this audio/video program and accompanying course guide

are those of the author and not of Recorded Books, LLC, or its employees.



3

Course Syllabus

Six Months That Changed the World:


About Your Professor ................................................................................................4

Introduction ..............................................................................................................5

Lecture 1 The Paris Peace Conference of 1919....................................................6

Lecture 2 The Peace Conference Meets in Paris ..............................................10

Lecture 3 New Forces in International Relations ................................................14

Lecture 4 The League of Nations and Mandates ................................................18

Lecture 5 Germany ..............................................................................................21

Lecture 6 New Nations ........................................................................................24

Lecture 7 Poland ..................................................................................................28

Lecture 8 Italy ......................................................................................................32

Lecture 9 Greece and Turkey ............................................................................36

Lecture 10 Palestine and the Jewish Homeland....................................................40

Lecture 11 The Arab Middle East ........................................................................44

Lecture 12 Germany’s Allies: Bulgaria, Austria, and Hungary ..............................49

Lecture 13 The Far East ........................................................................................53

Lecture 14 The End................................................................................................56

After the Peace Conference ....................................................................................60

Course Materials ....................................................................................................63



4

About Your Professor

Margaret MacMillan

Margaret MacMillan is the provost of Trinity College and a professor of histo-ry at the University of Toronto. Shewas an undergraduate at Trinity, earn-ing an Honours BA in 1966 in history.Her graduate work was at theUniversity of Oxford, where she earneda B.Phil. in politics and a D.Phil. on theBritish in India. She was a member of the History Department at Ryersonfrom 1975 to 2002 and also served aschair of the department. Teachingareas include Asian history, modern

European civilization, and international relations. She teaches a fourth-year seminar on the Cold War in the University of Toronto’s International

Relations Program. She was editor of the International Journal between1995 and 2002. She has served on the boards of the Metropolitan TorontoReference Library and the Ontario Heritage Foundation and is currently onthe boards of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, the ChurchillSociety for Parliamentary Democracy, and the Atlantic Council of Canada.She has written numerous articles and book reviews for both scholarly andnonscholarly publications. Her books include Women of the Raj (1988) andPeacemakers: The Paris Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End War

(2001), published in the United States as Paris 1919: Six Months That

Changed the World (2002). In the United Kingdom, the book won the Duff Cooper Prize, the PEN Hessell-Tiltman Prize for history, and the SamuelJohnson Prize for nonfiction. In the United States, the book won the Silver Medal in the Council on Foreign Relations Arthur Ross Book Award. Shecoedited with Francine McKenzie Parties Long Estranged: Canada and

Australia in the Twentieth Century (2003). Her latest book, Nixon in China:

The Week That Changed the World (titled Nixon and Mao in the UnitedStates) was nominated in January 2007 for a Gelber Prize, awarded annu-ally to the best book on international affairs published in English. Dr.

MacMillan appears frequently in the media commenting on both historyand current international affairs.

You will get the most out of this course if you have Margaret MacMillan’sParis 1919: Six Months That Changed the World (New York: RandomHouse, 2001).

P h o t o g r a p h

b y

J o h n

C

u r r i d



©

C l i p a r t . c o m

5

Introduction

The world will never see another peace conference like the one that tookplace in Paris in 1919. For six months, the world’s major leaders—includingWoodrow Wilson, president of the United States; David Lloyd George, primeminister of Great Britain; and Georges Clemenceau, prime minister of France—met to discuss the peace settlements that were to end World War I.They faced huge issues and, as the weeks went by, their agenda grew.

Because Paris saw such a concentration of power, the world’s problemscame before it and petitioners for political, social, and economic causescame to get a hearing.

The peace conference dealt with, among other things, winding up the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires; punishing Germany; creatingYugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Iraq; setting up the League of Nations andthe International Labour Organization; regulating international waterways andaviation; and feeding refugees. A great war had just ended and political andsocial structures were collapsing in parts of Europe and the Middle East.

New borders had to be established. The peacemakers in Paris worked under great pressures, including public opinion, forces of revolutionary communismthat had been set off by the Russian Revolution of 1917, and ethnic national-ism. They made many decisions, many of which have been criticized ever since. Some have argued that the peace settlements of 1919 led directly tothe outbreak of World War II in 1939.

To understand what happened in Paris in 1919 is to understand the twenti-eth century. The burial requiems for the old world were sung there and thenew world made its uneasy start. Much of the world we live in today is

shaped by decisions made all those years ago. The peace conference wasabout many things: punishing the defeated, to begin with, and rewarding thevictors. It dismembered old states and created new ones. It was about disar-mament, slavery, and child labor. It was about Europe, but it was also aboutthe Middle East, the South Pacific, Africa, and Asia. It was the first truly glob-al international conference. Above all, it was about building a better world.Can there be a peaceful and just international order? The question is stillwith us today.

Conferees at the Paris Peace Talks, 1919



Introduction

The Paris Peace Conference came at the end of the worst war Europeanshad ever seen. More than twenty-million men had been killed on the battle-fields. (Modern war had not yet begun to kill civilians in large numbers.)

Russia had collapsed into revolution and civil war and there were fears thatanarchy would spread through Europe and the world. Four empires—theRussian, the German, the Austro-Hungarian, and the Ottoman—had col-lapsed, so new political structures and new borders had to be created. Wewill look at the circumstances in which the peacemakers met in Paris, themany issues facing them, and the hopes and wishes of the public.

The Setting

Paris in 1919 was still one of the most beautiful cities in the world, but signsof the war were everywhere. For six months, from January to June, many of the world’s most important people were assembled there in a peace confer-ence unlike any other.

The Context: World War I

The chain of events leading to World War I started with the assassination of the heir to the Austrian throne at Sarajevo in June 1914. Through a series of decisions, in some cases miscalculations, Europe slid into a general war by

August. Because of the way in which the war started, there was going to be adebate—which still has not ended—about whose fault it was. While most peo-

ple expected that the hostilities would be over by Christmas, the war turnedinto a stalemate, which dragged on until November 1918, consuming hugenumbers of lives and tremendous resources. It is often seen as the first “totalwar.” Not surprisingly, it also produced increasingly large war aims.

The Combatants

On one side were the Allies, the British Empire, France, and Russia, later joined by Japan and Italy and several smaller European nations. On the other side were the Central Powers, Germany and Austria-Hungary, and then the

Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria.

The Russian Revolution

In 1917, Russia had a series of revolutions culminating in the Bolshevikseizure of power in October. The Bolsheviks under Vladimir Ilyich Leninimmediately sued for peace with Germany and, in March 1918, signed theTreaty of Brest-Litvosk. The Allies feared the military consequences and thatBolshevism would spread across Europe. L

E C T U R E O N E

The Suggested Reading for this lecture is Margaret MacMillan’s Paris1919: Six Months That Changed the World (introduction and chapter 1).

Lecture 1:


6



The Entry of the United States

In 1917, the United States entered onthe Allied side for a number of reasons,but, in the end, they did so largelybecause the German High Command

had decided to attack American mer-chant shipping. The American president,Woodrow Wilson, did not share all thewar aims of the Europeans.

The End of the War

The end of the war came surprisinglyquickly in the autumn of 1918. InSeptember, Bulgaria was the first of the

Central Powers to ask for an armistice.

The Collapse of Austria-Hungary

Austria-Hungary could no longer fight on.It faced economic and social disintegra-tion and several of its various nationalitieswere starting to demand independence.On October 7, it asked for an armistice.

Germany’s Defeat

German armies had suffered a series of defeats in August and September 1918.On October 3, the German governmentsent a cable to President Wilson askingfor an armistice. This started a series of negotiations that resulted in the armisticeof November 11, but which later gaverise to disagreements about what thearmistice actually meant and whether Germany had really been defeated.These were to have consequences for the peace.

The End of the Ottoman Empire

On October 20, the Ottoman Empire,which had already lost control of its Arabterritories, asked for an armistice. It wasunlikely that it would keep the rest, mostlytoday’s Turkey.

Europe in 1919

Europe was a deeply troubled continentin 1919. The war had left a huge loss of lives and war damage, particularly in suchcountries as France, Belgium, and Serbia.

THE INFLUENZA

EPIDEMIC OF 1919

The most destructive world epi-demic in recorded history startedas World War I (1914–1918) wasending. It caused at least 20 mil-lion deaths for certain, twice asmany deaths as the war itself,and possibly very many more.

When and where the pandemicbegan is uncertain, but becauseSpain experienced the first major outbreak, the disease came to

be called the Spanish flu. Thevirus was exceptionally lethal,with many of the deaths amongyoung adults age twenty to forty,a group usually not severelyaffected by influenza.

It first appeared in Glasgow inGreat Britain in May of 1918,eventually killing some 228,000

people in the British Isles despitedesperate government measuressuch as spraying the streets withchemicals and giving peopleanti-germ masks to wear.

By the end of December ofthat year, the toll in the UnitedStates reached 450,000. But theworst losses seem to have been

in India.The disease first appeared in

Bombay, India’s principal portcity, now known as Mumbai, inJune 1918. The country wascaught totally unprepared andwas unable to cope with theproblem. Many of the country’sdoctors were serving with the

British Army.

In the end, some historiansestimate that between Juneof 1918 and July of 1919, over 160 million may have diedfrom influenza.

7



The influenza epidemic, economic collapse, and social and political unrestcaused even more misery. Ethnic nationalism, in its own way as revolutionaryas Bolshevism, was riding high, especially in central Europe.

Pressures on the Peacemakers

The peacemakers brought their own agendas, but they also were under pressure from their own publics and from world opinion. These pressuresoften were contradictory.

Role of the Press and Public Opinion

The Peace Conference of 1919 was one of the first major international gath-erings to take place in the public gaze. Over seven hundred journalists cameto Paris. Since almost all the peacemakers came from democratic countries,they had to worry about voters back home.

Demands for Retribution

The war had been so dreadful that there was a widespread feeling thatsomeone should pay for the damage and some people should be punishedfor starting it.

Hopes for a Better World

Hopes that a better world would come out of the destruction were also wide-spread. The question was how to do this.

Limits on Power

We often assume that the peacemakers had a free hand. In fact, they weredealing with forces such as Bolshevism and ethnic nationalism, which weredifficult to contain. And their own power was shrinking day by day.

Conclusion

Who would be making the peace? The peacemakers brought their ownnational agendas and their own likes and dislikes to Paris. We must under-stand both the individuals and the forces with which they had to work to

understand how they made the peace settlements.

L E C T U R E O N E

8



1. What was the attitude of Americans toward Europe at the end of WorldWar I?

2. What were the human casualty tolls of World War I and how did this affectthe population, cultures, and politics of the key countries involved in thepeace to come?

3. Consider what is meant by the slogan “a Wilsonian Peace.” What were thekey elements of Woodrow Wilson’s plan for peace?

MacMillan, Margaret. Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World . NewYork: Random House, 2001.

Ferro, Marc. The Great War, 1914–1918 . Boston: Routledge & K. Paul, 1973.

Herwig, Holger. The Outbreak of World War I: Causes and Responsibilities.5th ed. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Co., 1991.

Stevenson, David. The First World War and International Politics. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1988.

1. Documents from World War I (including text of the Treaty of Brest-Litvosk) — www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/

2. Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library — www.woodrowwilson.org

Remarque, Erich Maria. All Quiet on the Western Front . UNABRIDGED.Narrated by Frank Muller. Recorded Books. 5 cassettes/7 hours.

Tuchman, Barbara. The Guns of August . UNABRIDGED. Narrated by IanStuart. Recorded Books. 12 cassettes/17.5 hours.

Websites to Visit

Recorded Books

Questions

Suggested Reading

FOR GREATER UNDERSTANDING

Other Books of Interest

9



PARTICIPANTS IN THE PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

(32 countries were invited)

Introduction

There were many precedents for major international conferences. In1814–1815, for example, the Congress of Vienna met to wind up theNapoleonic Wars. Much of what the Paris Peace Conference had to deal with

was similar: setting the terms for the defeated nations, drawing borders, andestablishing the peace. On the other hand, the range of issues was muchgreater and included much of the non-European world, from the Middle Eastto Asia and Africa. In addition, public scrutiny and public expectations werenow a very real factor in a way that they had not been a century earlier. Herewe look at the nature of the peace conference, the major players, and someof the many petitioners and advocates who tried to gain their attention.

Calling a Peace Conference

The precedent that the peacemakers kept in mind was the Congress of Vienna. They expected that they would sit down with the defeated nations andhammer out terms. The Allies decided, however, to meet briefly first and agreeon a common approach. What was meant to be a preliminary peace confer-ence gradually turned into the real one. As the weeks went along, the major peacemakers increasingly worked with each other in small meetings.

Personnel of the Peace Conference

Allied leaders came to Paris, along with their foreign ministers, diplomats,military, and financial advisers. This was also the first time that specialists

such as bankers and academics played an important role in internationalnegotiations.

The Suggested Reading for this lecture is Margaret MacMillan’s Paris1919: Six Months That Changed the World (chapter 2).

Lecture 2:

The Peace Conference Meets in Paris

L E C T U R E T W O

10

United StatesGreat Britain

CanadaUruguaySiamFranceCzechoslovakia

AustraliaRumaniaSouth Africa

SerbiaPolandNew ZealandPortugalPanamaIndiaLiberiaItalyPeruHedjaz

HaitiGreeceJapanGuatemalaEcuador BelgiumCubaChinaBrazilBolivia



The Participants and Their Agendas

What were the goals of the peacemakers as they met in Paris in January1919? Each nation brought different aims to the discussions.

The British Empire

Great Britain controlled the world’s biggest empire, but it had to consider thewishes of its dominions (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Newfoundland, andSouth Africa) and to a lesser extent India, because all had made very importantcontributions to the war effort. Britain’s power had declined in certain ways dur-ing the war while that of its dominions had increased. Nevertheless, the BritishPrime Minister, David Lloyd George, still played a dominant role both in theBritish Empire Delegation and at the peace conference. Britain came to Paris ina strong position because it had already gained much of what it wanted, in par-ticular, Germany’s colonies and the destruction of the German navy. It was con-

cerned, though, about the growth of American naval power, and this was to leadto tension in Paris with the United States.

France

France had feared Germany since the latter was created in 1871, and hadsuffered great losses in the recent war. French demands in Paris were largelyconcerned with getting war damages out of Germany, punishing it, and pre-venting it from threatening France in the future. The French prime minister,Georges Clemenceau, was the oldest of the Big Three’s leaders. He believed

that maintaining the alliance with Great Britain and the United States wouldhelp to protect France from Germany.

The United States

The United States was a new power on the world scene. It had entered the war because Germany threatened it, not to gain anything for itself. The president,Woodrow Wilson, expressed the hopes of many people around the world, aswell as in North America, that a new world order could be built based on princi-ples of fairness and justice. Wilson’s ideas are expressed in his famousFourteen Points and include the notions of national self-determination and col-lective security through a League of Nations. His decision to lead the Americandelegation to Paris himself caused controversy at the time and may have costhim political support later on.

In the end, the peace conference had thirty-two nations participating. Some,such as Costa Rica and Portugal, played insignificant roles, but several othersare worth noting.

Italy

Italy counted as one of the Big Four and its prime minister, Vittorio Orlando,was included in the exclusive Council of Four that started meeting in March1919. In fact, Italy was the weakest of the powers. Italian goals tended to focusnarrowly on territorial gain; Italy had entered the war in 1916 after weighing theoffers from both sides. One area where Italy hoped to make gains was on theeast side of the Adriatic, where the disintegration of Austria-Hungary apparentlyleft its territories up for grabs.

11



Japan

Japan counted as one of the Big Five and, at first, participated in the impor-tant meetings of the Supreme Council (or Council of Ten) until these weredropped in favor of the Council of Four. Japan was an Asian power but notyet a world one and was included as a courtesy to its ally, Great Britain. The

Japanese had clear territorial goals as well as the one of achieving recogni-tion as the equals of Westerners.

Some Smaller Powers

Belgium and Serbia had both suffered terribly during the war and both hopedfor recompense and some territorial gain. Greece had designs on much of the Turkish coast of Asia Minor. China wanted to recover its own territory thathad been under German control. Rumania wanted, among other things, alarge piece of Hungary.

The Petitioners

Because there was such a concentration of power in Paris for those sixmonths, petitioners came from around the world. These included nationalgroups who wanted their own countries, for example, Poles, Czechs,

Armenians, Irish, Kurds, or Ukrainians. They also included interest groupssuch as women, labor, African-Americans, or peoples from the Europeanempires.

Conclusion

As the Peace Conference opened at the end of January 1918, it already hada long list of issues before it: drawing up peace terms for the defeated nations,sorting out the borders in the center of Europe and the Middle East, rebuildingthe war-shattered economy of Europe, and, finally, making a better world.

L E C T U R E T W O

12



1. What are the ways the Paris Peace Conference served as a sort of world government?

2. Are there similarities between the organization of the League of Nationsand the United Nations?

3. Besides nationalist groups, what other types of groups came to the

peace conference?


Dockrill, Michael L., and J. Douglas Goold. Peace without Promise: Britainand the Peace Conferences, 1919–1923 . Hamden, Connecticut: ArchonBooks, 1981.

Nicolson, Harold. Peacemaking 1919. London: Methuen, 1964.

Sharp, Alan. The Versailles Settlement: Peacemaking in Paris, 1919. London:Macmillan, 1991.

1. A variety of information regarding the Paris Peace Conference, includingthe speech of the French president at the opening of the conference — www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWversailles.htm

2. Yale Law Library collection of historical documents — www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/avalon.htm

Smith, Gene. When the Cheering Stopped: The Last Years of Woodrow Wilson. UNABRIDGED. Narrated by Nelson Runger. Recorded Books.8 cassettes/11 hours.

Websites to Visit

Recorded Books

Questions

Suggested Reading



13



Introduction

Woodrow Wilson’s ideas about a new world order were not the only ones inthe world of 1919. The new rulers of Russia, the Bolsheviks (soon to renamethemselves the Communists), were Marxists who believed, among other

things, that revolution was going to break out in Europe and then possibly therest of the world and that, as a result, a new socialist international order would be created in which there would be no more barriers between nationsand indeed no more nationalism. The Bolshevik ideas and hopes were chal-lenged not only by Wilson’s liberal international order but by the rising tide of nationalism, in particular ethnic nationalism. Here we will look at the peace-makers in Paris as they decided how to deal with these new currents andhow to deal with Russia itself.

Russian Bolshevism

Lenin and the Bolsheviks got their ideas from Karl Marx and his Europeanfollowers who believed that history was governed by immutable laws and wasmoving in the direction of a classless, communal society—communism. Leninhad given his own twist to these ideas and during the war had seen thechance to move history ahead rapidly. The old Russian regime collapsed inFebruary 1917.

The Russian Revolution of 1917

Russia had a brief but chaotic period of democratic rule after February 1917,

but the Bolsheviks were able to seize power in October 1917. A civil war started almost immediately. The Allies watched with concern and sent troopsto protect their interests, their supply routes, and a Czech legion that had gotitself caught on the Trans-Siberian railway. In March 1918, the new Bolshevikgovernment concluded the treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany. This wassignificant both for the war itself and in shaping Allied attitudes towardGermany when peace finally came.

Allied Intervention in Russia

The Allies—among them Britain, France, Japan and the United States—initiallysent troops into Russia to help the war effort, but they increasingly got drawninto the Russian civil war between the Bolshevik Reds and the non-BolshevikWhites. That had long-term consequences for relations between what becamethe Soviet Union and the West.


Lecture 3:

New Forces in International Relations

L E C T U R E T H R E E

14



Bolshevik Foreign Policy

Both Leon Trotsky, the Bolshevik now responsible for Russia’s foreign rela-tions, and Lenin expected that a worldwide revolution would follow the revolu-tions in Russia. In 1919, they issued a call for delegates from left-wing partiesand unions around the world to come to Moscow to form a new Communist

International (Comintern), which would act as the executive coordinator for world revolution. The Bolsheviks had little interest in what they saw as obso-lete international relations.

Prospects for World Revolution

Nineteen eighteen and 1919 saw revolutionary outbreaks in Europe andelsewhere. In Germany and Austria, workers and soldiers seized power.There was a communist government briefly in Bavaria and a longer-lived onein Hungary. Most European countries had radical demonstrations, some vio-

lent, and strikes. In North America, the International Workers of the World(Wobblies) and the Winnipeg General Strike were signs of turmoil, possiblyrevolutionary. In Paris, the peacemakers were conscious of the dangers of further revolution. Wilson and his supporters were also aware that theBolsheviks were holding up an alternative model for a world order. Somepetitioners also used the threat of revolution to push their demands.

Allied Policy Toward Russia

There was considerable discussion in Paris over whether to invite Russian

representatives to the peace conference. Russia, after all, had been an allyuntil March 1918. The problem was that it was not clear if it still was an ally or which Russians, White or Red, should be invited. A number of the peacemak-ers did not want any dealings with the Bolsheviks. It was also not clear thatthe Bolsheviks would even come if invited. Apart from anything else, Alliedtroops were still on Russian soil aiding their enemies. Allied policy remainedconfused throughout the peace conference with an abortive proposal for aconference of all Russians at Prinkipo, a special fact-finding mission by theyoung American William Bullitt, and a running debate over whether to step up

Allied intervention or withdraw Allied troops.

National Self-determination

In the nineteenth century, different groups in Europe had come to see them-selves as “nations” united by such factors as a common language, religion, or culture. Once nations emerged, the next step was the demand for a nation-state.Few nations were content to live under the rule of other nations. So in theBalkans, nationalism produced the nations of Greece, Serbia, Rumania, andBulgaria. In the second half of the nineteenth century, it produced Germany andthen Italy. Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and Russia, all multinationalempires, watched with apprehension.

The Role of Woodrow Wilson

Woodrow Wilson has often been said to have created the ethnic nationalismsof the years after World War I. Rather, he gave a spur to what already existed.In his speeches during the war, he helped to popularize the idea of “nationalself-determination.” He himself was not entirely clear what he meant by this,

15



but most people took it to mean full independence for nations. The ideaspread beyond Europe into the Middle East, where groups such as the Arabsand the Kurds began to press for self-determination.

Problems for the Peace Conference

It was not always possible to draw clear ethnic borders, especially in themiddle of Europe. The peacemakers set up a series of specialist committeesto deal with borders. They tried to deal with the persistence of minorities bymaking new nations sign Minorities Treaties.

Conclusion

In its first few weeks, it became clear that the peace conference was dealingwith a large and expanding agenda. And it had barely begun to deal with major issues such as the peace with Germany. Woodrow Wilson was concerned thathis dream of a better world would be shunted to one side so he insisted that thefirst matter of business for the Big Four should be the League of Nations.

L E C T U R E T H R E E

16



1. Had nationalism been a factor in international relations before this time?

2. What do you think is the strongest bond that people share to make thema nation?


Link, Arthur S. Wilson the Diplomatist . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1957.

Mayer, Arno J. Politics and Diplomacy of Peacemaking: Containment and

Counterrevolution at Versailles, 1918–1919. New York: Knopf, 1967.

1. Collection of primary texts relating to the Russian Revolution — http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook39.html

2. Overview of important dates in Russian history — http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/chrono.html

Moorehead, Alan. The Russian Revolution. UNABRIDGED. Narrated byNelson Runger. Recorded Books. 9 cassettes/12.5 hours.

Reed, John. Ten Days That Shook the World . UNABRIDGED. Narrated byJack Hrkach. Recorded Books. 7 cassettes/10 hours.

Websites to Visit

Recorded Books

Questions

Suggested Reading



17



Introduction

A league of nations to keep peace among nations had been discussed invarious countries even before World War I. Woodrow Wilson, the Americanpresident, is the man most usually associated with its coming into existence

after 1918. He insisted that it be put on the top of the agenda at the ParisPeace Conference and he himself chaired the commission that drew up theLeague’s covenant. We will look at Wilson’s role, the work of the commission,and the debates over the League’s constitution.

Woodrow Wilson and Colonel Edward House

Woodrow Wilson is a complicated and controversial figure. His political career was based on reform at home and peace abroad, yet he led the United Statesinto the war. He was clear, however, that the United States would not playwhat he saw as the old games of diplomacy, which included secret agree-ments and the naked exercise of power. He wanted a new world order andthe League was at the center of his vision. He did not, however, spell out hisideas clearly before the Peace Conference started. Wilson was also convincedthat public opinion, in Europe and in the United States, was with him.

Colonel House was Wilson’s right-hand man. He shared the president’sideas and worked closely with him during the war and the peace conference.Like Wilson and many of the other Americans on the U.S. delegation, he feltthat European ways were out-of-date and that the United States should use

its increased power to pressure Europeans into a new way of doing things.Wilson and House were later to fall out, perhaps over the German terms,perhaps for other reasons.

Historians’ Debates

Did Wilson and House come up with the idea of a league as an answer toLenin’s vision of a new communist world? Was there a gulf between the

Americans and the Europeans?

Pre-war Ideas and the League

Europeans, particularly in Western Europe, had been discussing many of theideas that helped to shape the League years before the war. Liberals had longbeen interested in limiting war, through arms limitations, for example, or con-ventions, and in finding alternative ways of settling disputes such as arbitra-tion. The left had tried to coordinate unions and political parties to resist war.The Second International had called for a general strike if war should come.

The Suggested Reading for this lecture is Margaret MacMillan’s Paris1919: Six Months That Changed the World (chapters 7 and 8).

Lecture 4:

The League of Nations and Mandates

L E C T U R E F O U R

18



The Negotiation of the League Covenant

The Commission on the League met in House’s rooms and managed todraw up the Covenant in under a month. The League was to have an execu-tive council with five permanent members and four elected by League mem-bers. It would have a secretariat and a General Assembly. An International

Labor Organization, whose structure was also being negotiated in Paris,would also be attached to it.

There were a number of divisive issues including that of whether or not theLeague should have its own armed forces. The French wanted a permanentmilitary alliance with its own forces; the British and the Americans disagreed.In the end, the League remained without its own armed forces. The covenant,however, provided for a series of sanctions against aggressor nations thatcould culminate in armed force if League members chose.

Mandates Another issue that came up in connection with the League was that of man-dates. The defeat of Germany left its colonies to be disposed of. Wilson wasopposed to giving them out as spoils of war to their conquerors. South Africa,which had taken German Southwest Africa; Australia, which had done thesame with German New Guinea and some South Pacific Islands; and NewZealand, with German Samoa, all opposed Wilson. The British, who werecaught in the middle, helped to broker a deal under which the territories werenominally under the League of Nations, but in reality remained with their con-

querors. Canada also played a role in this. Mandates were also going to bean issue with Japan in China and the north Pacific and for Britain and Francein the Arab Middle East.

Mid-winter Break

The statesmen in Paris were finding that the conference was keeping themaway from home for too long. In the middle of February, President Wilsonwent back to the United States on a hasty trip for the opening of the newCongress and to deal with domestic issues. Lloyd George went back to

London. The peace conference carried on, however, with House standing infor Wilson and Arthur Balfour, the British foreign secretary, for Lloyd George.

Conclusion

In Paris, the mood turned sour as delegates feared the peace conferencewould never be done. An attempted assassination of Clemenceau, theFrench prime minister, brought added worry of revolutionary outbreaks.

Although much work had been done, there was still much to do. The Germantreaty was the most pressing item of business.

19



1. Did Wilson come to the peace conference with an already shaped plan for the League of Nations?

2. Do you think Wilson’s vision was too idealistic to be fully implemented?

3. From where did Colonel House draw his authority?


Hecksher, August. Woodrow Wilson. New York: Charles Scribners’Sons, 1991.

Walworth, Arthur. Wilson and His Peacemakers: American Diplomacy at the

Paris Peace Conference, 1919. New York: Norton, 1986.

1. Covenant of the League of Nations — http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/leagcov.htm

2. League of Nations statistical and disarmament documents —

http://www.library.northwestern.edu/govpub/collections/league/background.html

Websites to Visit

Questions

Suggested Reading



L E C T U R E F O U R

20



21

Introduction

The German peace treaty—Versailles—remains the single most contentioustopic of the peace conference. Germans argued right from the start that itsterms were too harsh. Germany lost too much territory, had to pay too much

in reparations (or war damages), and was unfairly forced to accept responsi-bility for the war. In time, many of the Allies, especially in the English-speak-ing countries, came to share such views, and that was to have serious conse-quences in the 1930s when Hitler came to power in Germany and began todemand revision of the Treaty of Versailles.

Germany and World War I

In 1919, most Allied opinion held Germany responsible for starting WorldWar I. From Wilson to Clemenceau, Allied leaders condemned German mili-tarism and, in particular, Germany’s invasion of Belgium and its attack onFrance. There was much debate about how to punish those in Germany whowere particularly responsible, such as Kaiser Wilhelm II and the German HighCommand. It was only over the years that doubts began to grow aboutGermany’s responsibility for starting the war. The debate has continued up tothe present.

German Attitudes

In Germany, certain beliefs about the war and its ending took hold, whichwere to have a profound impact on the way in which Germans regarded the

Treaty of Versailles and the Allies.

Military Defeat

Although German armies were defeated on the battlefield, the HighCommand and its supporters pushed the “stab-in-the-back” theory, whichargued that Germany was prevented from fighting on by traitors at home.In addition, the Allied decision to accept the armistice when Germanyoffered it meant that Allied troops only occupied a very small part of Germany. German troops marched home in good order and most Germans

never saw an Allied occupation.

Surrender on the Basis of Wilson’s Principles

Most Germans felt that by accepting Wilson’s offer to help them negotiate anarmistice, they had been promised that a peace would be made on the basisof Wilson’s new diplomacy. In other words, they would suffer no punitivemeasures and Germans would have as much right of self determination as

The Suggested Reading for this lecture is Margaret MacMillan’s Paris1919: Six Months That Changed the World (chapters 13 to 16).

Lecture 5:

Germany



anyone else. In any case, since Germany was now a republic, it should nothave to pay for the sins of the old regime. The new German governmentspent the winter of 1918–1919 preparing for what it felt would be full and fair peace negotiations.

Allied Attitudes

The Allies did not see things the way the Germans did. There was a wide-spread determination, both among leaders and people, that Germany wasguilty and should suffer penalties. The Allies differed, though, over how thisshould be done. Many French would have liked to see a much smaller Germany with an independent or neutral Rhineland to act as a buffer. Britainand the United States would not go for this. Clemenceau recognized the dan-gers in being too vindictive and so would have settled for an Allied occupationof the Rhineland.

Issues in German Peace: Punishment and Prevention

Among the issues discussed in Paris were trials for war crimes and limits onthe size and composition of Germany’s military. The military clauses providedfor, among other things, a German army of only one hundred thousand men.

Loss of Territory

This was tied to the issue of punishment and prevention, because a smaller Germany would presumably be less menace to its neighbors. In the West,Germany lost some small pieces of territory—Eupen and Malmédy—along

the Belgian border and part of Schleswig-Holstein to Denmark. TheRhineland remained Germany but was to be demilitarized with an Allied occu-pation for fifteen years. The Saar coal-mining area was to be under Leagueof Nation’s administration and France was to have the coal from its mines.Germany was also due to lose considerable territory in the east; that will bediscussed later in the context of the central European settlement.

The Anglo-American Guarantee to France

To persuade Clemenceau to accept less than many French wanted, Lloyd

George and Wilson offered a guarantee that Britain and the United Stateswould come to France’s aid if it was attacked by Germany. The guaranteenever materialized, leaving the French resentful and afraid.

Conclusion

By the end of March 1919, many of the German terms had been agreed on,but there was still a major question to be decided. How much shouldGermany be asked to pay in reparations? A debate had already startedbetween those who wanted to squeeze the maximum out of the defeated

enemy and those who argued that destroying Germany would only damageEurope’s and indeed the world’s economy.

L E C T U R E F I V E

22



1. What was happening in Germany while the peace terms were being drawnup in Paris?

2. What was the significance of the declining birth rate in France?

3. In what ways was Germany to be punished?


Boemeke, Manfred, Gerald D. Feldman, and Elisabeth Glaser, eds.The Treaty of Versailles: A Reassessment After 75 Years. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press and the German Historical Institute, 1998.

1. Collection of materials on World War I — http://www.firstworldwar.com

2. BBC-sponsored site on World War I — http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwone

Websites to Visit

Questions

Suggested Reading



23



Introduction

Nationalism, as we have already discussed, was a very powerful force in theworld of 1919. The collapse of old ruling structures had left much of Europeand the Middle East in a fluid state and one of the most fluid things of all were

borders. Some nations, notably Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, managed toestablish themselves even before the peace conference met. Others struggledto be born and failed. We look here at the reasons for both success and fail-ure and at the way the peacemakers helped or hindered the new nations.

Czechoslovakia: Background and History

While there had never been a Czechoslovakia, Czech nationalists could lookback at the independent kingdom of Bohemia before it was absorbed into the

Austrian Empire. Czech nationalism grew in the nineteenth century with a cul-tural and political revival. Slovakia, which had been under Hungarian rule for centuries, did not experience a similar revival.

Eduard Benes and Tomás Masaryk

Masaryk became the great spokesman for Czech independence within Austria-Hungary, and Benes, who worked closely with him, helped to winover the Allies to the cause of Czechoslovakia. Masaryk was also successful,or so he thought, in winning Slovak support for the new country.

The Collapse of Austria-Hungary

By the time Austria-Hungary collapsed, Czechoslovakia was well onthe way to establishing itself. The peace conference merely providedformal recognition.

Allied Attitudes

The Allies were generally sympathetic to Czechoslovakia. The French, infact, saw it as a potential ally against Germany. At the peace conference,Masaryk and Benes were treated as allies and not former enemies.

Setting Czechoslovakia’s BordersThe new country took in the old Austrian territories of Bohemia and Moravia

and Hungary’s Slovakia. It now included some three million German speak-ers—the Sudeten or Southern Germans—but this only caused trouble withGermany later on. Unfortunately, Czechoslovakia had a dispute with Polandover the duchy of Teschen, which helped to poison relations between thewars. Of its neighbors, none were really friendly. Its relations with the other

The Suggested Reading for this lecture is Margaret MacMillan’s Paris1919: Six Months That Changed the World (part 3).

Lecture 6:

New Nations

L E C T U R E S I X

24



new state of Yugoslavia were good, but the two had no common border.

Czechs and Slovaks

The peoples of the new country turned out to have language in common, butnot much else. Different histories, social customs, and values created ten-

sions in the new state that were going to cost it dearly. Yugoslavia: The South Slavs

Yugoslavia means the “state of the South Slavs,” who are those peopleswho speak one of the South Slavic languages, for example, Serbian,Croatian, Slovenian, or Bulgarian. South Slavs otherwise are divided by his-tory and religion. The line between the Western and Eastern Roman empiresand between Catholicism and Orthodoxy runs through the Balkans so thatwhile Serbs and Bulgarians are mainly Orthodox, Croats and Slovenesare Catholic.

Background

The South Slav lands lay on the east-west dividing line between theOttoman empire and its religion of Islam and the Christian empire of Austria-Hungary. Many South Slavs lived under Austrian rule but many, at least untilthe nineteenth century, were under Ottoman rule. In the course of the centu-ry, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Montenegro emerged as states inhabited mainly bySouth Slavs. Slovenia and Croatia, though, remained in Austria-Hungary,which also took Bosnia-Herzegovina from the Ottomans in 1908.

The South Slav Movement

Many of the South Slavs in Austria-Hungary dreamed of a state with allSouth Slavs. The Serbs of Serbia, however, tended to think in terms of abigger Serbia.

Impact of the War

The war started when Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia for its part in theassassination of the Austrian heir in Sarajevo. Although the Serbian army

fought bravely, it was crushed and the Serbian government went into exile.Its prime minister, Pasic, held talks with Croatians from Austria-Hungary andpromised a federal state at the end of the war.

The End of the War and the Formation of Yugoslavia

The sudden end to the war and the collapse of Austria-Hungary leftSlovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina on their own. Although their inhabitants briefly thought of independence, they hastily decided to join withSerbia. From the very start Slovenians, Croatians, and Bosnians believed

they were joining the Serbians as partners, while Serbians tended to assumethey were taking over the former.

Montenegro and the New State

Montenegro’s king hoped to keep his kingdom independent, but he nolonger had much support either internationally or within Montenegro. A hastyvote led Montenegro to join with the other South Slavs in Yugoslavia.

25



Allied Attitudes

The Allies were generally sympathetic to the new state except for Italy,which feared it as a rival in the Adriatic.

Yugoslavia’s Borders

Yugoslavia tried unsuccessfully to claim a piece of Albania. It did succeed ingaining some small territories from Bulgaria and a significant piece of south-ern Hungary. On its western borders, it found itself in a dispute with Italy.

Kosovo

Kosovo was under Serbia’s control, but a majority of its inhabitants were Albanian. Albania petitioned the peace conference for Kosovo, and in later years Kosovo Albanians themselves complained about Serbian treatment, butno one in 1919 or later paid attention.

Other States

A number of smaller states also achieved independence in this period.Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania emerged out of the Russian empire.

Although the Peace Conference could offer little beyond recognition, thosecountries managed to maintain their independence until World War II.Ukraine was not so fortunate. Further south, Armenia and Georgia bothenjoyed brief periods of independence, which were cut short when Russia tothe north and the new Turkey to the south agreed to cooperate.

Conclusion

The peacemakers have often been held responsible for the success or fail-ure of new states. In reality, they often played little part. Conditions on theground and the strengths or weaknesses of the national movements weremore important.

L E C T U R E S I X

26



1. Did the peace conference truly create all of these new nations?

2. What future problems for the new state were foreshadowed at the time of the creation of Yugoslavia?

3. Why was Czechoslovakia favored by the peacemakers?


Dockrill, Michael L., and Douglas J. Goold. Peace without Promise: Britain

and the Peace Conferences, 1919–1923 . Hamden, Connecticut: Archon

Books, 1981.

Jelavich, Barbara. History of the Balkans. 2 vols. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1983.

Wandycz, Piotr Stefan. France and Her Eastern Allies, 1919–1925: French-

Czechoslovak-Polish Relations from the Paris Peace Conference to

Locarno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1962.

Koestler, Arthur. Darkness at Noon. UNABRIDGED. Narrated by FrankMuller. Recorded Books. 6 cassettes/8.25 hours.

Mazower, Mark. The Balkans: A Short History . UNABRIDGED. Narrated byRobert O’Keefe. Recorded Books. 5 cassettes/6.5 hours.

Recorded Books

Questions

Suggested Reading



27



Introduction

Poland had disappeared from the map of Europe at the end of the eigh-teenth century, its lands divided up among its three neighbors: Russia,

Austria-Hungary, and Prussia (later to be incorporated into Germany). The

Poles, despite being divided, and in the case of Russia severely repressed,never forgot their dream of a reconstituted country. The war, which saw thedefeat of all three of Poland’s oppressors, gave Poles their chance. The prob-lem for the peacemakers in Paris was how big the new Poland should be andhow its borders, with its six neighbors, should be drawn.

Background and History

Poland has a long and turbulent history. At its height, in the sixteenth andseventeenth centuries, it covered a huge part of the central Europe. In 1795,it vanished as a nation, perhaps, it was thought, for good. In the nineteenthcentury, Poles lived under three different regimes and societies. Those in

Austria-Hungary lived in Galicia, one of of the poorest parts of the empire.Those in Germany became relatively prosperous, while those in Russia,which had taken the largest part of Poland, including the capital Warsaw,suffered under an increasingly repressive regime. The Russian Poles roseup several times only to be crushed. Many Poles went into exile in Europe or further afield to North America.

Persistence of Polish Nationalism

In spite of all obstacles, Polish nationalism lived on in underground societies,exile groups, and in the work of its artists. A complicating factor for Polishnationalism was how to deal with peoples such as Lithuanians and westernUkrainians, many of whom were culturally and linguistically close to Poles, butwho were beginning to develop their own sense of nationhood. In addition,about a quarter of the population in the core Polish territories was probablyJewish. Were Jews also Poles (as many of them felt themselves to be) or not?

World War I

The war brought challenges and opportunities. Poles found themselves fight-ing each other, with Russia on the one side, and Germany and Austria-Hungary on the other. Both sides used promises of Polish independence towin over the Poles. In North America and elsewhere, Ignace Paderewski, thegreat pianist, worked tirelessly to promote the Polish cause. In Poland itself,Jozef Pilsudski, a revolutionary turned soldier, organized the Polish legionsthat fought for the Central Powers.


Lecture 7:

Poland

L E C T U R E S E V E N

28



1919: The Rebirth of Poland

At the end of the war, Poland’s situation and hopes for independence weredramatically improved. All three of its oppressors—Austria-Hungary, Germany,and Russia—had been defeated. The Allies had agreed that Poland should beindependent. Indeed, Woodrow Wilson had included Polish independence as

one of his Fourteen Points. Pilsudski arrived back in Warsaw and took com-mand with his Polish legions. He started to build a country.

Debates Among Polish Nationalists

While all Poles were overjoyed at Poland’s rebirth, they were divided over what sort of Poland it should be. While Pilsudski argued for a smaller Polandthat would contain fewer non-Poles, his great opponent, Roman Dmowski,dreamed of a much greater country that would include large numbers of Lithuanians, Ukrainians, and Belorussians.

Poland at the Peace Conference

Poland did not speak with a single voice in Paris—Dmowski representedPoland at the peace conference while Pilsudski remained in Warsaw. Manyof the peacemakers grew exasperated both by quarrels among the Poles andwhat they saw as excessive Polish demands. The French were the mostsympathetic to the Poles, partly because France had traditionally supportedPolish nationalism, but also because France wanted a strong Poland on theother side of Germany.

Poland’s Borders

Drawing borders for Poland was complicated because of the ways in whichPoles and non-Poles were mixed up. Poland’s borders were set in two ways:In the west they were determined by the peace conference. In the north andthe east, they were largely determined on the ground through war, althoughall were ultimately ratified by treaties.

Borders with Germany

The Polish Commission, set up by the peacemakers, tried to draw bordersthat left Poles and Germans on the right side. Nevertheless, some two millionGermans ended up under Polish rule, something that was resented bitterly byGerman nationalists. The commission also had to respect Wilson’s promiseto give Poland secure access to the sea. The result was the Polish Corridor,which gave Poland routes to Danzig (Gdansk). Danzig, which was largely aGerman city, was placed under the control of the League of Nations. TheCorridor divided East Prussia from the rest of Germany, another source of resentment to German nationalists. In the south, Upper Silesia, with its richcoal fields, was eventually divided between Germany and Poland after aplebiscite conducted by the League.

Borders with the Baltic States

Poland’s border with the new state of Latvia was settled relatively easily. Theone with Lithuania was only settled after war. Pilsudski, who was prepared tosee an independent Lithuania, unlike some Polish nationalists, was deter-mined that Poland should have the Lithuanian city of Vilna (Vilnius). The city

29



changed hands several times, but Poland ultimately seized it. Lithuania retali-ated by seizing part of East Prussia, including the port of Memel (Klaipeda).

Borders in the South

Poland quarreled with the new country of Czechoslovakia over the duchy of

Teschen, which was finally divided between the two countries. It also claimedthe former Austrian province of Galicia. The Allies agreed that the westernhalf, which was significantly Polish, should go to Poland. Eastern Galicia wasmore difficult, being claimed not only by Poland, but by Ukraine, which wasbriefly independent, and by local Catholic Ukrainians or Ruthenians. After much confused fighting, Poland simply seized the territory. The Allies recog-nized its control in 1923.

Borders with Russia

These were the most difficult of all. Poland had many enemies to its east,from Ukrainians to various factions in the Russian civil war. Their main ene-mies, though, were the Bolsheviks, who saw the Poles both as trying to takeRussian territory and as obstacles to the successful spread of Bolshevismwestwards. From February 1919, the war between the Bolsheviks and thePoles spread. Initially the Poles were successful, even getting as far asKiev. By the summer of 1920, though, the Bolsheviks were outside Warsaw.The Poles beat them off and in the Treaty of Riga (March 1921), Polandgained a border with Russia well to the east of what the peacemakers inParis had recommended.

Conclusion

Poland is a good example of the force of nationalism in the world of 1919and of the limits to the power of the peacemakers in Paris. Poland’s bordersin the east, south, and north were set largely by Poland itself. Poland’s rebirthalso shows the difficulties in drawing ethnic borders in the center of Europeand how those borders provided fuel for future tensions.

L E C T U R E S E V E N

30



1. Who really was Polish? Were the Jews?

2. How did the Russian Revolution benefit Polish nationalism?

3. Did nationalism influence the creation of Poland’s borders more than thedecisions made at the peace conference?


Latawski, Paul, ed. The Reconstruction of Poland, 1914–23 . London:Macmillan, 1992.

Lieven, Anatol. The Baltic Revolution: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the

Path to Independence. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.

International Affairs Resources — http://www.etown.edu/vl/

Websites to Visit

Questions

Suggested Reading



31



Introduction

Italy entered World War I with clear territorial aims. It joined the Allied sidelargely because the Allies, in the Treaty of London, offered it more than theCentral Powers. By 1919, the country was divided politically and in economic

and social turmoil. The Italian delegation to the Peace Conference infuriatedits fellow peacemakers by insisting doggedly on Italian demands. Italy’s claimto Fiume (Rijeka), a port at the top of the Adriatic, which was not included interritory promised to Italy, became a hot issue and led to a confrontationbetween the Italians and the Americans that seriously threatened the work of the peace conference as a whole.

Italy in 1914

Italy was a new country with an old history. It was divided politically betweenright and left and socially and economically between north and south. It wasthe weakest of the great powers in Europe. Nevertheless, it had extensiveterritorial ambitions, for parts of Austria-Hungary in the north and across the

Adriatic, and in Africa and the Middle East. Before the war, it had taken partsof North Africa in what became Libya, but had suffered a humiliating defeat atthe hands of the Ethiopians.

The Decision to Enter the War on the Allied Side

Although Italy was tied to the Central Powers through a defensive treaty, itchose to remain neutral when World War I started. Both sides wooed Italy

and the Italian government weighed their offers. The Allies were able to offer more because they were giving away Austrian and Ottoman territory. TheTreaty of London, signed in 1915, contained secret clauses, promising Italyterritory along its northern border with Austria, in the Istrian peninsula andalong the east coast of the Adriatic, in Africa and in the Middle East.

Italy and the War

Italy entered the war in 1916. Italian forces suffered terrible losses, but its Allies, particularly the French, were contemptuous of the Italian contribution

to the Allied victory. Its losses fed demands in Italy for large gains.

The Italian Delegation

Italy’s delegation to Paris was led by its prime minister Vittorio Orlando andand its foreign minister, Sidney Sonnino. Orlando was seen as less hardlinethan Sonnino, who made little attempt to negotiate but simply insisted on theTreaty of London plus Fiume. On the various committees, such as the onesdrawing borders, the Italians took positions to advance Italian interests.


Lecture 8:

Italy

L E C T U R E E I G H T

32



Allied Attitudes

The Allies grew increasingly impatient with the Italians. Britain and France,however, felt bound by the Treaty of London. The United States did not.Wilson indeed claimed that he had never seen it before 1919. In any case, hedisapproved of secret agreements.

Italian Demands

Italy demanded the South Tyrol from Austria to round its borders in the east-ern Alps up to the Brenner Pass. Wilson agreed to this, in spite of the factthat the area contained a large number of German speakers. Italy alsoclaimed the Istrian peninsula and much of the Dalmatian coast of the eastern

Adriatic and some Adriatic islands on various grounds from historical to ethnicones. After much debate among the peacemakers, Italy got most of theIstrian peninsula. The Allies, led by Wilson, resisted Italian demands along

the Dalmatian coast.

Italy and Albania

Albania was a new state, created in 1912. During the war, its neighbors— Greece in the south, Serbia to the east, and Italy across the Adriatic—movedin on it hoping to take pieces in the subsequent peace settlements. Thepeacemakers, however, decided that Albania should remain intact, much tothe annoyance of the Greeks who wanted the southern part of Epirus and theItalians who wanted the coast including the important port of Vlöre.

Italy and Yugoslavia

While Italian liberals were initially sympathetic to the desire of south Slavswithin Austria-Hungary for independence, many Italians regarded the emer-gence of Yugoslavia with dismay. Italian right-wing nationalists worked todestroy the new state. Relations were further complicated by the fact thatItaly was claiming territory Yugoslavia also wanted.

Italy Leaves the Conference

In April 1919, the dispute over Italian claims led to a major crisis at thePeace Conference. Orlando and Sonnino decided to walk out and returned toRome, where they were greeted with tremendous enthusiasm.

Wilson decided to appeal directly to the Italian people in a public letter. InParis, the peacemakers feared that the conference would fall apart and therewould be no treaty signed with Germany.

Italy Returns

The Peace Conference carried on its work and began to carve up Turkey

without consulting the Italians. The Italian delegation finally came back, butrelations between the Italians and the Americans in particular never recov-ered and it proved impossible to get a final settlement of Italy’s claims in the

Adriatic before Wilson left.

The Final Settlement

Italy dropped its claims to former Turkish territory and in Africa. It did notreach a final settlement of its Adriatic claims until 1920. At this point, it was

33



clear that the United States was no longer prepared to be involved and thatItaly would have to deal directly with Yugoslavia. Italy and Yugoslavia hadcarried out unsuccessful negotiations in Paris, but in 1920 they signed theTreaty of Rapallo, which gave Italy some more territory in Istria, the Adriaticport of Zara (Zadar), and a few islands.

Conclusion

The Italian crisis showed how difficult it is to hold together war-time coali-tions in peace time. It weakened the peace conference at a particularly diffi-cult time. The Italians were left disappointed with the peace settlement.Unfortunately, they were not the only ones.

L E C T U R E E I G H T

34



1. Why did Italy hesitate to give up the Treaty of London?

2. Why did Orlando and Sonnino ignore the agenda of the Italian ColonialMinistry for Africa?

3. What was the true significance of Fiume?


Albrecht-Carrié, René. Italy at the Paris Peace Conference. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1966.


1. Collection of information on Italy before and after World War I — www.thecorner.org/hists/total/f-italy.htm

2. Information on the background of Vittorio Orlando and Italy’s position in the

Versailles Treaty — www.learn.co.uk/versailles/countries.italy.htm3. Collection of the people in power during the first half of the twentieth

century — www.newgenevacenter.org/movers/20th_1st2.htm

Websites to Visit

Questions

Suggested Reading



35



Introduction

The Paris Peace Conference dealt with much more than European issues.One of the defeated nations was Ottoman Turkey, which still had a foothold inEurope, in the Balkans, and which also controlled present-day Turkey and

much of the Middle East. The Allies assumed in 1919 that the Ottomans werefinished and that the Ottoman territories were there for the dividing up. Britain,France, and Italy all had claims, as did Greece. Their plans went wrong, as weshall see, because they had not counted on the Turks themselves resisting.

The Ottoman Empire to 1914

The Ottomans appeared from central Asia in the thirteenth century and start-ed to build an empire in what later became Turkey. In 1453, they took theancient city of Constantinople (Istanbul). At its height in the sixteenth century,the empire stretched from present-day Hungary and Rumania in the north tothe Arabian peninsula in the south and from the coast of present-day Algeriain the west to the borders of Iran in the east. By the eighteenth century, theempire had lost Hungary, and in the nineteenth century, it declined sharply.

The Decline of the Empire

A combination of pressures from its subject peoples within and pressurefrom European powers without led to the shrinking of the Ottoman Empireduring the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Of its north-African terri-tories, France took Algeria and Tunisia and Britain took Egypt. In 1911, Italy

took Libya. In Europe, Ottoman power receded as one by one the nations of the Balkans—Greece, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Rumania, and Serbia—gainedtheir independence. In 1908, Austria-Hungary formally annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina. In 1912, after two wars in the Balkans, Albania became anindependent country. The Ottoman Empire was left with a small Europeanfoothold in Thrace.

The Young Turks

In 1908, reformist army officers seized power in Constantinople and tried

to arrest the decline of the Ottoman Empire. They encouraged Germaninvestment and German officers helped to overhaul and modernize thearmed forces.

World War I

The Young Turks who controlled the government decided to support theCentral Powers. Turkish forces fought well during the war—notably at


Lecture 9:

Greece and Turkey

L E C T U R E N I N E

36



Gallipoli, where they stopped an Allied landing—but by the autumn of 1918the Ottoman Empire was exhausted. The government sued for an armisticeand the Young Turk leaders went into exile, leaving control in the hands of the weak Ottoman emperor.

Allied Plans for the Ottoman Empire

The Allies assumed that the Ottoman Empire would not survive the war. Aswe shall see, Britain and France made a secret agreement in 1916 to divideup the Arab territories. Russia agreed in return for free passage through theStraits, which led from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. (When Russiadropped out of the war in 1918, that agreement became void.) Italy protestedwhen it learned about the agreements and was promised territory stretchinginland from the coast of Asia Minor. France, which was owed large amountsof money by the Ottomans, put in a claim for part of the south of Turkey.

Great Britain and the Ottoman Empire

In the century before the war, Britain had propped up the Ottoman Empire,partly to block its then enemy Russia from moving into the easternMediterranean and partly to safeguard its route through the Mediterraneanand the Suez Canal out to India. The British did not particularly want to seethe French gaining a large part of the Ottoman Empire, either in the ArabMiddle East or Turkey itself.

The United States and the Ottoman Empire

During the Peace Conference, the British hoped that the United States mightbe persuaded to take on responsibility for part of Turkey, perhaps as a man-date from the League of Nations for the area around the Straits and Constan-tinople and perhaps for Armenia as well. Woodrow Wilson toyed with the idea,but there was little likelihood of American public opinion or Congress support-ing such an undertaking.

Greece and the Ottoman Empire

Among the various plans for the Ottoman Empire, the most ambitious was

that of Greece. Although Greece was a relatively new and weak country,many Greek nationalists hoped to re-create the glorious Greek past beforethe birth of Christ, when Greeks controlled much of the Mediterranean, AsiaMinor, and the Black Sea.

Venizelos and the Great Idea

Greece’s prime minister in 1919 was Eleutherios Venizelos, a native of Cretewho had helped to liberate his island from Turkish rule. Venizelos shared the“Megali Idea,” the great idea of rebuilding the old Greek empire in the eastern

Mediterranean and in Turkey. He was immensely charming and persuasive.

Greece and the War

The Greek king wanted to remain neutral during the war, but Venizeloswished to support the Allies. After a political crisis that saw Venizelos tri-umph, Greece entered the war in 1917.

37



Allied Support for Venizelos

In an age when many leading statesmen had received a classical education,there was much sympathy for Greece and for Venizelos among the Allies. Hisparticular supporter was David Lloyd George, the British prime minister.

The Decision to Land Greek Troops at SmyrnaIn the spring of 1919, the situation was deteriorating in Turkey. The Italians,

already at odds with their Allies, landed troops on the coast to protect, sothey claimed, Italian citizens. Reports also came in of clashes between theTurks and the considerable numbers of Greeks who lived along the coast of

Asia Minor. In May, while the Italians were still absent from Paris, the Alliesgave Greek troops permission to land in Smyrna (Izmir). Venizelos intendedto stake out a claim to a huge area of land stretching inland from the port. Inthe summer of 1920, Greek troops moved inland.

Treaty of Sèvres (1920) with the Ottoman Empire

The Council of Four did not devote much time to the Ottoman peace terms,which were not drawn up until the summer of 1920. By this point, both theUnited States and Italy had largely lost interest in having a presence there.Britain and France were largely responsible for the terms, which includedinternational control of the Straits area, a French sphere of influence in AsiaMinor, and Greek control of Smyrna and its hinterland, as well as Thrace. Italso provided for an independent Armenia and possibly a Kurdistan. The

treaty did not last.Ataturk

While the peace conference was discussing the Ottoman Empire, eventswere moving rapidly on the ground. Turkish nationalism was growing, and itfound an outstanding leader in Mustafa Kemal or Ataturk. A distinguished war hero, he issued a declaration in the summer of 1919 opposing any division of the Turkish lands. He built an army and a political movement. The Ottomandynasty became irrelevant long before he abolished it in 1923. In the summer of 1922, Turkish forces destroyed the Greek armies and Smyrna burned.

Treaty of Lausanne

By 1923, the Allies recognized that they would have to negotiate a new treatywith Turkey. After difficult negotiations at Lausanne, a treaty was signed in1923 with the new Turkey. Its provisions included the forced exchange of Greek and Turkish populations. Greece gave up its claims to eastern Thrace.There were no mandates or foreign spheres of influence over Turkey.

Conclusion

The peacemakers approached the Turkish settlement as though the Turksthemselves had no say in it. They drew up the peace terms to suit them-selves and their favorites, the Greeks. What they had not counted on was theforce of Turkish nationalism and the leadership provided by Ataturk. Theywere to approach the Middle East in a similar spirit, but there, at least for atime, they did not have to deal with the same resistance.

L E C T U R E N I N E

38



1. What were the European attitudes toward Turkey in the earlytwentieth century?

2. What were Greece’s goals at Paris and why did the Allies support them?

3. What was the impact of the final settlement at Lausanne on the popula-tions of Greece and Turkey?


Fromkin, David. A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire

and the Creation of the Modern Middle East . New York: Avon Books, 1989.

Kent, Marian, ed. The Great Powers and the End of the Ottoman Empire.London: G. Allen and Unwin, 1984.

Smith, Michael Llewellyn. Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor 1919–1922 . Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1998.

1. Information on the threat to Constantinople in 1915—French, British, andRussian roles — www.mondediplo.com/2003/04/07ottomanempire

2. Conference of San Remo following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire — www.kcbx.net/~ied/kmuscx.html

3. Territory remaining of the Ottoman Empire by 1919 — www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/OTTOMAN/EUROPE.HTM

Websites to Visit

Questions

Suggested Reading



39



Introduction

Some of the most fateful consequences of the Paris Peace Conference wereits decisions regarding the Middle East. Those decisions involved the Arab ter-ritories but they also helped to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine. We see

the foundations not only of the modern state of Israel, but of Arab hostility to it.The Middle East before World War I

As Ottoman power declined, a number of European powers—notably Britain,France, Germany, Italy, and Russia—looked with interest at the Middle East.Their motives were mixed from religion to economics.

Historical and Religious Motives

Christianity had been born in the Middle East and large numbers of Christians of various denominations still lived there. Europeans had anattachment to the holy places and in the nineteenth century it becameincreasingly easy to visit them. In addition, Western missionaries establishedmissions, schools, and hospitals throughout the Middle East. Certain nations(for example, Russia, in the case of the Orthodox Christians and France inthe case of Catholics) used the excuse of protecting Christians to further their own interests in the area.

Strategic Motives

Geography put the Middle East at an important strategic crossroads. Russia

wanted access to the Straits for its war fleet in the Black Sea and to the east-ern Mediterranean. Britain wanted to protect the Suez Canal (opened in1869) and its crucial links to India. Germany hoped to acquire territory tobuild an empire.

Economic Motives

Business interests in the different European powers wanted access toMiddle East products and to such projects as railway building. In addition,many European banks and individuals had lent money to the Ottoman Empire

itself or to its subordinates, such as the ruler of Egypt.

Oil

Although coal was still the primary fuel for Europe, oil was starting tobecome important before World War I. The British navy converted its ships tooil shortly before the war. That meant that sources of oil were now important.Middle East oil remained largely undiscovered and undeveloped, but the


Lecture 10:

Palestine and the Jewish Homeland

L E C T U R E T E N

40



British had opened wells in Iran and suspected that there might be oil aroundMosul in the Ottoman Empire.

Zionism

Zionists were Jews who wanted to build a Jewish state. The World Zionist

Organization looked at a number of areas, including Uganda, but it settled onPalestine, a province of the Ottoman Empire, for religious and historical rea-sons. Although the Zionist movement was small when it held its first congressin 1897, it grew rapidly.

The Growth of Zionism

About half the world’s Jews lived under Russian rule before 1914, many of them in the Polish territories. Life in what was known as the Pale was hard,both economically and because the Tsarist regime was anti-Semitic. SomeJews emigrated to Western Europe or the New World, a few became revolu-tionaries, and others still became Zionists. In Western Europe, where Jewswere by now largely integrated into society, there were still unsettling out-breaks of anti-Semitism, as in, for example, the Dreyfus Affair in France. Afew Jews made their way to Palestine and established colonies before WorldWar I.

The Role of Chaim Weizmann

Chaim Weizmann, a chemist by training, played an enormously importantrole in promoting the Zionist program and in winning over support from influ-

ential figures, especially in Britain. He became friendly with Arthur Balfour,prime minister before the war and foreign secretary in 1919, and with PrimeMinister David Lloyd George.

Weizmann and other Zionists made presentations to the peace conference.Weizmann resisted pressure from radical Zionists who demanded a Jewishstate immediately and asked merely for a homeland. To Weizmann’s fury, aFrench Jew who did not support Zionism also appeared to argue that aJewish homeland in Palestine would leave Europe’s Jews with divided loyal-ties and would not benefit them in the long run.

The Peace Conference itself did not make a final decision on Palestine; thatwas left to a later conference at San Remo in 1920, where Britain got a man-date for Palestine whose terms included carrying out the Balfour Declaration.The United States played only a small role; Zionism did not yet have the sup-port of a majority of American Jews. Wilson did, however, insist on sending afact-finding commission to the area, which found that Palestinian Arabs wereopposed to Zionism.

The Balfour Declaration

During the war, Weizmann lobbied for British support for a Jewish presencein Palestine. While both Balfour and Lloyd George were sympathetic to theJews, they would not have given support if they had not thought it was inBritain’s and the Allies’ best interests. Support finally came in 1917 in theform of a letter from Balfour to Lord Rothschild, a leading British Jew.

41



Wording

His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment inPalestine of national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the attainment of this object . . .

The declaration also talked about not prejudicing the civil and religious rights

of non-Jewish communities. Although it carefully did not mention a state or anation, that is how it was understood by Zionists and by the British press.

British Motives

The British government supported Zionism in the Balfour Declaration to winover world Jewish opinion, which was lukewarm on the Allies because Russiawas one of their number and because they feared that Germany was about tomake a similar declaration. The British also hoped that the declaration wouldwin over influential Jewish bankers in New York and make it easier to

arrange much needed loans. Finally, Palestine was close to the importantSuez Canal, and a Jewish homeland there under British protection wouldhelp to safeguard it for Britain.

Allied Support

The French government, although not particularly committed to Zionism, fol-lowed the British lead. The United States was sympathetic, but held back frompublic support because it never officially went to war with Ottoman Turkey.

The Arab Reaction to Zionism and the Balfour DeclarationInitially Arabs were not aware of the British and French agreement to divide

up the Middle East and did not appear concerned about Zionism. PrinceFaisal, who had led an Arab revolt against the Ottomans, met with Weizmannin the summer of 1918 and again in London. The two men talked in friendlyterms of future cooperation between Jews and Arabs in Palestine and indeedsigned an agreement to that effect in January 1919. The agreement did notproduce any lasting results. In Palestine itself, relations between Jews and

Arabs were deteriorating and the British found that they were being blamed

by both sides.

Conclusion

The Balfour Declaration and the subsequent peace settlements laid thefoundations for the state of Israel. Unfortunately, they also helped to set apattern of hostility between Jews and Arabs. As we will see, the Arabs cameto associate promises broken by Britain and France with the Jewish presencein Palestine. The Allies made other promises during the war that were goingto complicate the postwar situation. Britain and France made a quiet deal to

divide up the Arab territories, including Palestine. They also appeared topromise independence to the Arabs.

L E C T U R E T E N

42



1. With so many ethnic and religious factions vying for a homeland/state dur-ing the peace conference, why do you suppose the Jews were successfulwhile others were not?

2. Why did the British support a Jewish homeland in Palestine?

3. What reaction did the Arabs have to the establishment of the

Jewish homeland?


Fromkin, David. A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empireand the Creation of the Modern Middle East . New York: Avon Books, 1989.

Sanders, Ronald. The High Walls of Jerusalem: A History of the Balfour

Declaration and the Birth of the British Mandate for Palestine. New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1984.

Draft of Zionist proposal to the peace conference —

www.iea.org.il/blueprint/page025.htm

Websites to Visit

Questions

Suggested Reading



43



Introduction

While the Paris Peace Conference is often thought of as dealing withEurope, in fact it had a huge impact on many other parts of the world. In theMiddle East, the peacemakers drew the borders that still exist today and they

created new countries. We look at how they set in motion the chain of eventsthat led to both the birth of Israel and the hostility between Jews and Arabs.

Background

Before 1914 much of the Arab world was still under the control of theOttoman Empire, although in North Africa, France had taken Algeria andTunisia, Britain had taken Egypt, and Italy had taken what became Libya.Elsewhere, Western powers were extending their influence through the Arabworld, whether through trade and investment or missionaries. Around thecoast of the Arab peninsula, the British had established a series of posts andprotectorates to guard the sea route out to India. A weak Ottoman Empirewas powerless to help them. To the east of the Ottomans, the British werealso moving into the south of Persia, as Iran was known in those days, whilethe Russians penetrated the north.

Arab Nationalism

In much of the Arab world, nationalism was still dormant. Egypt was anexception; the British takeover of control in the 1880s had provoked largedemonstrations and resistance. Elsewhere, in the large cities, such asDamascus, Beirut, and Baghdad, educated Arabs were starting to found dis-cussion groups and newspapers to talk about freeing themselves fromOttoman rule. The assumption of power in 1908 by the Young Turks inConstantinople (Istanbul) with their determination to revive the OttomanEmpire and make it more Turkish stimulated this early Arab nationalism. Oneimportant feature of this nationalism is that it generally assumed that therewould be a single large Arab state.

World War I

The war affected the Middle East in a number of ways. It destroyed theOttoman Empire, but it also brought increased attention from outside powers,in particular Britain and France. Russia had been removed by revolution andGermany by defeat from their prewar involvement. The United States,although it had considerable connections through American missionaries, didnot yet have a strong interest in the area. Britain and France made a number of promises during the war that proved difficult to fulfill in peacetime.


Lecture 11:

The Arab Middle East

L E C T U R E E L E V E N

44



The Sykes-Picot Deal

Both Britain and France had strong interests in the Middle East. They there-fore decided to work out an arrangement to ensure that, if the OttomanEmpire disappeared, they would take over more direct responsibility for thearea. The deal, known as Sykes-Picot after the two men who negotiated it,

was completed in 1916 but subject to some revisions later in the war. Francewas originally to have Mosul, but the British, who suspected that it containedoil, persuaded the French to give it up. Lloyd George apparently promisedClemenceau support against Germany in Europe. In its final form, it gaveFrance control of what became Lebanon and Syria and Britain control over what became Palestine (later divided into Palestine and Transjordan) andIraq. Provision was made for part of the inland territories to be ruled by Arabswho would remain, however, under British or French supervision.

The Arab Revolt

The British and French were extremely concerned that the ruler of theOttomans in his role as caliph or spiritual leader would call a jihad or holy war of all Muslims against them. They were also worried that Ottoman Turkishtroops would attack southwards toward the Suez Canal. Britain tried to knockOttoman Turkey out of the war with the Gallipoli landings and by attackingnorthwards into Mesopotamia (today’s Iraq). Both campaigns were militarydisasters. Britain also resorted to an Arab revolt against the Turks. Sir HenryMcMahon, High Commissioner in Egypt, in an exchange of letters with

Hussein, the Sharif of Mecca, promised Arab independence in return for arevolt. Where that independence would be was left unclear. The Arab revolt,which started in the summer of 1916, was led by Hussein’s son, Faisal, whohad support from British officers, including T.E. Lawrence.

The Balfour Declaration

As we have seen, the British also made a promise to the Zionists thatinvolved the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, a piece of ter-ritory that Britain was to receive under Sykes-Picot, but which the Arabs alsoassumed was to be part of an independent Arab state.

Self-determination

Reports of Woodrow Wilson’s speeches about a new world order made their way to the Middle East, as they did to other parts of the world. The idea of national self-determination was received with enthusiasm. The British andFrench, reluctantly, took it up to satisfy the Americans. At the end of the war,Britain and France issued a declaration, which they circulated in Arabic, thatsaid their aims had been the emancipation of the subject peoples of theOttomans and the establishment of national governments.

The Peace Conference

Although there was considerable discussion at the Peace Conference of theMiddle East, its settlement was delayed.

45



Faisal at the Peace Conference

Faisal, with the help of Lawrence, presented demands for a large indepen-dent Arab kingdom. The French, who disliked both men, produced other

Arabs who asked for French support and involvement.

Allied AttitudesIt was generally agreed that the Arabs were not yet ready for self-govern-

ment. Partly in response to American pressure, the European powers accept-ed that they could not simply take colonies in the Middle East but that theywould have mandates from the League of Nations. There was some talk of the United States having the mandate for Palestine.

British-French Wrangling

Lloyd George, who had disliked the Sykes-Picot agreement from the start,

now tried to wrest more of Syria from the French. In a furious scene in May1919, Clemenceau threatened to take back Mosul.

Division of the Spoils

By the fall of 1919, Lloyd George was in a more conciliatory frame of mind.The British Empire had been shaken by costly revolts in Egypt, India, andIreland. He and Clemenceau hastily worked out a deal, which was confirmedat the San Remo Conference in 1920. France got Lebanon and Syria, Britaingot Palestine and what became Iraq. The two countries also agreed to share

the oil from Mosul.The New Middle East

The settlement in the Middle East was made largely to suit Britain andFrance. The United States was withdrawing from involvement by the endof 1919 and Italy abandoned its claims. For the Arabs, 1920 was the yearof disaster.

Lebanon

To protect the Christians in Lebanon and to keep Syria a manageable size,the French added Syrian territory to Lebanon.

Syria

To fulfill the promises to the Arabs for their revolt, the British persuaded theFrench to allow Faisal to have the throne of Syria. The French had no inten-tion of allowing him any independence, and in July 1920 French troops senthim into exile.

Palestine

Britain took the mandate for Palestine. The terms included support for theJewish homeland. The area east of the Jordan river was turbulent, with fight-ing Arab tribes. In March 1921, at the Cairo Conference, Britain created aseparate state of Transjordan, and to make up for its unfulfilled wartimepromises to the Arabs, gave the throne to Abdullah, another son of the Sharif of Mecca.


46



47

Iraq

The three former provinces of the Ottoman Empire—Mosul, Baghdad,Basra—had little in common. Their peoples were ethnically diverse with dif-ferent cultures and religions. The British created Iraq for administrative con-venience and they put in Faisal, the deposed king of Syria, to rule it. Gertrude

Bell, an extraordinary English woman, helped to create institutions for thenew country. The British never found Iraq easy or cheap to run. From thestart they had to deal with widespread revolts. Faisal proved to be a goodking but, from the British point of view, a too-independent one.

Kurdistan?

The Kurds, who stretched from Turkey across to Iran, were only starting toemerge as a nation. At the Paris Peace Conference there was some talk of an independent Kurdistan, but that was dropped by the time the final treaty

was signed with Turkey at Lausanne in 1923.

Conclusion

The consequences of the peace settlements in the Middle East are still withus today. Iraq has been a troubled country since its inception. The pattern of betrayal and manipulation by Western powers, as so many Arabs see it, hasleft a profound sense of resentment toward the West in much of the Arabworld. In addition, the increased presence of Jews in Palestine became, rightfrom the start, a symbol to Arabs of that betrayal and a cause for the wider

Arab world.



1. What was the significance of mandates in the Middle East after World War I?

2. What did Britain and France claim their main aims in World War I were for the Middle East?

3. How important a part did oil play in the peace settlements in the Middle East?




Yapp, M.E. The Making of the Modern Near East, 1792–1923 . London andNew York: Longman, 1987.

1. Information on the Middle East on the Verge of World War I — www.mondediplo.com/maps/middleeast1914

2. Chronology of events in the Middle East from 1908 to 2003 —

www.middleeastreference.org.uk/Chronology.html3. Michigan State University, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences,

website provides information on the Levant — www.h-net.org/~levant/

Websites to Visit

Questions

Suggested Reading




48



49

Introduction

The German treaty (Versailles) was the most difficult one to make in Paris.Once it was done, many of its clauses were transferred wholesale to thetreaties with Germany’s allies in Europe—Bulgaria and Austria-Hungary (the

latter now two separate countries of Austria and Hungary). Although all threeof Germany’s former allies were expected to pay reparations, they were infact incapable of doing so.

Bulgaria

Bulgaria entered the war on the side of the Central Powers hoping to gainback the territory it had lost in the Second Balkan War of 1913, in particular part of Macedonia, which had gone to Serbia, the Southern Dobrudja, whichhad gone to Rumania, and the north part of eastern Thrace, which hadremained Turkish.

Bulgarian Hopes

The Bulgarians optimistically hoped for gains even after they were defeatedon the grounds of self-determination. The population in the areas they wantedmay have been majority Bulgarian, although this was difficult to establish.

The Peace Settlement

In the end, the Allies did not want to change borders in the Balkans, whichhad taken so much bloodshed and trouble to establish. The United States,

which initially had supported its claim to the Dobrudja, lost interest. Bulgariadid not gain the Southern Dobrudja and it also lost some small pieces of terri-tory to Yugoslavia and western Thrace. Thus, it was not cut off from accessto the Mediterranean. Bulgaria signed its treaty at Neuilly in November 1919.

Austria-Hungary

Austria-Hungary was an ancient multinational empire that incorporated the oldkingdom of Hungary (which in turn ruled over territories such as Croatia andSlovakia) and the Austrian territories that included Slovenia, the Czech lands,

and present-day Austria. By 1914, the empire was in marked decline. Its variousnationalities were pressing for greater independence.

World War I

Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia in August 1914 with the backing of its allyGermany. This set off the general European war. Austria-Hungary fought inthe Balkans and along the front with Russia. Although it was successful


Lecture 12:

Germany’s Allies: Bulgaria, Austria, and Hungary



against Serbia, it suffered terrible losses against Russia. By 1918, it wasclear that the Empire could no longer fight on. Hungary, which had its ownparliament, was increasingly going its own way. In addition, various nationali-ties, among them Poles, Czechs, and South Slavs, were demanding greater autonomy. Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points of January 1918, in which he

spoke of the “freest opportunity” for the autonomous development of the peo-ples of Austria-Hungary, further encouraged their demands.

The Armistice

The new Austrian emperor, Karl, asked for an armistice in the middle of September 1918. While he waited for a reply, his subject peoples one by onedeclared their independence. On November 3, the armistice was signed.Shortly afterwards, Karl renounced his part in the government of his empire(he never formally abdicated) and went into exile. There was no more

Austria-Hungary.

Consequences

New borders had to be drawn between states that were frequently claimingthe same territory. With the collapse of the empire, an economic and trans-portation network also collapsed. This added to the widespread misery in thecenter of Europe and to fears of revolution.

Austria

Austria was left as a small country of some seven million people with a capital

and bureaucracy designed for an empire. The Allies were prepared to be moregentle with it than they were with Hungary. Nevertheless, Austria lost some of itsremaining territory and was expected to pay reparations (in the end this provedimpossible). Austria signed its treaty at St. Germain in September 1919.

Austria’s Borders

Although it was largely German speaking, the South Tyrol went to Italy.Yugoslavia claimed the area around Klagenfurt in the south of Carinthia onthe grounds that the inhabitants were a majority of Slovene speakers. In a

plebiscite conducted by the League of Nations, the inhabitants voted toremain with Austria.

Anschluss

In its treaty, Austria was prevented from joining with Germany. (A similar clause was put into the German treaty.) The Allies, especially France, did notwant a larger Germany. In fact, there was not much enthusiasm for

Anschluss in either Austria or Germany.

HungaryThe Allies regarded Hungary as largely responsible for keeping Austria-

Hungary in the war. Lloyd George also considered Hungarian society reac-tionary. When Hungary had a communist revolution in the spring of 1919,that did not help either.

L E C T U R E T W E L V E

50



51

World War I

Hungary had been reluctant to enter the war. As the conflict dragged on,internal strains and tension with Austria grew. In October 1918, Hungary setup an independent government. In November, it proclaimed itself a republic.When the war ended, much of Hungarian territory was occupied by Serbian,

Rumanian, or other Allied troops.

The Communist Revolution

In April 1919, the government of Michael Karolyi was overthrown by BelaKun’s Communists. This caused alarm at the peace conference. A missionunder General Smuts recommended against negotiations with Kun. WithinHungary, his position grew worse as his reforms created fresh enemies. InJuly, Kun was overthrown in turn.

Hungary’s Borders

Hungary had already lost much of its prewar territory by the time the peaceconference opened. Slovakia had gone into the new state of Czechoslovakiaand Croatia and some other pieces of territory in the south into Yugoslavia.The important territory of Transylvania, which Rumania claimed, still had tobe settled.

Rumania

Rumania, a relatively new Balkan state, had dropped out in 1918 after military

defeat but had reentered the war on the Allied side shortly before the end of hostilities. Its prime minister, Ion Bratianu, who came to Paris to presentRumania’s case, argued that it had never made a separate peace with theCentral Powers. Queen Marie of Rumania also came to help present Rumania’sclaims, which included Bessarabia from Russia, the Bukovina from Austria, andmuch of Transylvania.

War with Hungary

In the summer of 1919, Rumanian troops moved into Transylvania and thenHungary proper. Kun’s government, which was also under attack by Czechand Yugoslav forces, fell and Rumania occupied much of Hungary, includingthe capital Budapest.

Transylvania

The Allies ordered the Rumanians to withdraw from Hungary proper, whichthey eventually did without grace. Although the Allies were now more sympa-thetic to Hungary, they decided to leave Transylvania with Rumania.

Conclusion

Like Germany, none of the defeated countries were satisfied with their treaties, and this provided grounds for tensions in the interwar years.



1. Why was the timing right in Hungary for Bela Kun’s seizure of power?

2. What event started the general European war?

3. How and why did Austria-Hungary end?


Macartney, C.A. Hungary and Her Successors: The Treaty of Trianon and Its

Consequences 1919–1937 . London and New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1937.

1. Information on the conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia and howit escalated into World War I — www.maxpages.com/ww1

2. Information on the Treaty of Saint Germain and the Treaty of Trainon — www.europeanhistory.about.com/cs/division

3. Information on the chain of events and countries that joined World War I

after Austria-Hungary and Serbia began fighting — www4.distinct125.k12.il.us/faculty/pmazzuca/ww1/tsld012.htm

Websites to Visit

Questions

Suggested Reading



L E C T U R E T W E L V E

52



53

Introduction

China and Japan had both dealt with the challenge of the nineteenth centuryin different ways. Since Japan was both more successful in modernizing itself and expanding, China increasingly came to see it as a threat. Both countries

joined the war on the Allied side to further their own interests.Asia Before World War I: The European Empires

The European empires dominated much of Asia. Britain held India, Burma,and Malaya. France had taken Indochina (Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos),the Netherlands held the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia), and Russia hadtaken considerable territory from China. In 1898, the United States tookthe Philippines. Japan and China were almost the only Asian territoriesleft unclaimed.

China

In the nineteenth century, China had the misfortune to be in a period of dynastic decline and rebellion. Over the century, China lost territory and con-cessions to foreigners. In response, Chinese nationalism grew. In 1911,China had a republican revolution, which did not, however, arrest its decline.The Chinese fear was that China was about to be carved up. Perhaps onlythe outbreak of World War I prevented this. That, however, provided anopportunity for one of China’s most determined aggressors—Japan.

JapanThe Japanese had met the Western challenge more successfully than

China. Japan had modernized itself during the Meiji Restoration and by the1890s had become an Asian power. In 1895, it went to war with China andacquired Taiwan and Korea (which it annexed formally in 1910). In 1902, itsigned a naval alliance with Great Britain. In 1904–1905, it defeated TsaristRussia and established a strong presence in Manchuria.

World War I

When the war broke out, Japan joined on the Allied side. Japan took a num-ber of German islands in the North Pacific and German concessions, includ-ing the port of Tsingtao in the Shantung peninsula. Japan tried to ensure thatit would hold on to its gains by signing a secret agreement with Britain and bypressuring the weak Chinese government to accept its conquest in Shantung.The Chinese tried to resist the pressure by joining the war themselves, alsoon the Allied side. China made a significant contribution to the Allied victoryby providing manpower.


Lecture 13:

The Far East



China and the Peace Conference

The Chinese delegation came to the peace conference with considerablehopes. The Chinese, who already admired Western democracy, wereimpressed by Woodrow Wilson’s statements about a new and fair world order.

Japan and the Peace ConferenceJapan came with clear aims: To keep its wartime conquests and to get

recognition for Japanese as the equals of Westerners. Several countries— including the United States and Australia—had discriminatory measuresagainst Asians. The Japanese government feared that if it did make gains inParis, it would face social and political unrest at home.

Allied Attitudes

While there was sympathy, especially among the Americans, for China, the

Allies generally felt that Japan was the more important power in Asia. On theother hand, concern was growing about the spread of Japanese power in

Asia and, for example, the activities of the Japanese in Siberia and China.

The Shantung Issue

Both China and Japan put in their claims for Shantung. It was generally feltthat Wellington Koo, the Chinese spokesman, had made the better case. Theconference took several months to make a decision, during which time bothsides lobbied the peacemakers. Colonel House, among others, tried to broker

a deal. In the meantime, another issue affecting Japan came up.The Racial Equality Clause

Japan was not prepared to drop its demands for the German concessions inShantung partly because it had not succeeded in another of its keydemands—racial equality. The Japanese had raised this in discussions at thecommission on the League of Nations. Japanese delegates asked for aclause to be inserted in the League Covenant to the effect that citizensshould not be discriminated against on the basis of religion or race. This wasopposed by the Australians. Woodrow Wilson feared opposition from his ownWest Coast and that he would lose the votes of key Senators. Colonel Houseagain tried to broker a compromise but failed. Wilson ruled the clause out ona technicality but felt that he owed Japan something.

Shantung Decision

In May 1919, the Big Four decided to award the German concessions inChina to Japan. The Chinese delegation refused to sign the peace treaty andin China huge demonstrations broke out. Many Chinese nationalists gave upon the West and turned to the new Soviet Union.

Conclusion

Both China and Japan came away from Paris disappointed, and that disap-pointment was to have serious long-term consequences for their internaldevelopment and for their relations with each other and with the West.

L E C T U R E T H I R T E E N

54



1. What was Japan’s major request at the peace conference?

2. Why was Shantung so important to China?

3. What country did China turn to after the Allies sided with Japan?


Fifield, Russell. Woodrow Wilson and the Far East: The Diplomacy of the

Shantung Question. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1968.

1. Collection of the events that took place in China during World War I — www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/comment/chinawwi/ChinaTC.htm

2. Information on Japan at the peace conference and the exclusion of immigration from Japan —www.easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~ppp.f6/Ayumi/JapaneseHistory/TaisyoPeriod/TaisyoPeriod.html

3. Information on Japan in World War I and its interest in Manchuria,Mongolia, and the Shantung Pennisula —www.kings.edu/histo ry/20c/japan.html

Websites to Visit

Questions

Suggested Reading



55



Introduction

Although the Paris Peace Conference dealt with many parts of the world, itis chiefly remembered today for the settlement with Germany, embodied inthe Treaty of Versailles. That treaty has been blamed for the rise of Hitler and

the outbreak of World War II. We shall consider that question and also askwhat would have happened if the United States had not refused to sign theTreaty of Versailles.

The German Terms

As time went by, it became clear that there would be no full scale negotia-tions with Germany. Drawing up the peace terms had taken too long andinvolved too many delicate compromises. Furthermore, there was a danger that other countries besides Italy might walk out. Japan had threatened toleave over the racial equality clause. China was refusing to sign over theShantung clauses. Belgium was complaining that its needs for war repara-tions and a share in Germany’s colonies were being ignored.

German Loss of Territory

This included all its colonies, the Polish corridor and Danzig, Upper Silesia,and part of Schleswig-Holstein. Germany also had to return Alsace-Lorraineto France, which it had taken in 1871. Altogether, Germany lost about 10 per-cent of its prewar territory. The Rhineland remained German, but was demili-tarized. The Saar was temporarily under League of Nations management. In

1935, its inhabitants voted to rejoin Germany.

Military Clauses

Germany was to have an army of one hundred thousand men and no air force or heavy equipment such as tanks. A more general disarmament waspromised, which never occurred and added to German resentment. The prob-lem with the terms was in their enforcement.

Trial of the Guilty

Although this was popular among Allied publics, in the end only a handful of German officers were tried in German courts. The Dutch refused to handover Kaiser Wilhelm II, who remained in exile in the Netherlands until he diedin 1941.


Lecture 14:

The End

L E C T U R E F O U R T E E N

56



57

Reparations

These had been the subject of intense debates among the Allies. The UnitedStates was for a relatively moderate figure, the French and British for a high-er one. The French and British quarreled over the share each should get.Setting the final figure was difficult because estimating damages, for exam-

ple, in the ruined parts of France and Belgium, would take years and estimat-ing how much Germany could pay was also difficult. Lloyd George, the Britishprime minister, under pressure from hardliners in Britain, alternated betweenwanting to be moderate and severe. In the end, he suggested that a final fig-ure not be put in the treaty, but be determined by an independent commis-sion. This was done, but the process added to German resentment. The finalfigure was set at $32 billion US, to be paid in stages—in-kind and cash.

The War Guilt Clause

Article 231, which was written by John Foster Dulles, was put in to establishGermany’s liability. It mentions “responsibility” for the war not “guilt.” Article232 said that reparations had to be based on Germany’s ability to pay.

The German Reaction to the Peace Terms

The Germans brought crates of materials to Paris, believing that they wouldhave full-scale negotiations. Instead, they found themselves treated like crimi-nals by the French and told that they could only submit comments on theterms in writing. The German foreign minister, Ulrich von Brockdorff-Rantzau,

made a defiant speech when he received Germany’s terms. This hardened Allied opinion. The scuttling of the German fleet at Scapa Flow further antag-onized the situation.

The German Decision to Sign

The peace terms set off a prolonged political crisis in Germany. The Alliesset a deadline for signing, but feared that they might have to invadeGermany. At the last moment, the German government managed to getapproval and two German delegates were dispatched to Paris.

The Signing of the Treaty of Versailles

The Treaty was signed in the Hall of Mirrors on June 28, 1919.

Reactions to the Treaty in Germany

The Germans never accepted the treaty and the terms were evaded asmuch as possible. For example, Germany made an agreement with Russia totest heavy equipment there. Reparations remained a bone of contentionbetween Germany and the Allies. Germany was unwilling to pay up, especial-ly as the years went on, and the Allies, at least the British, were increasinglyreluctant to enforce the terms.

Elsewhere

In English-speaking countries, opinion grew that the terms were indeedtoo harsh and that the French were being unreasonable. The Economic

Consequences of the Peace by the economist John Maynard Keynes, whichcame out in the autumn of 1919, was an enormously influential attack on the



L E C T U R E F O U R T E E N

58

short-sightedness and stupidity of the peacemakers. Britain, in any case, fellback into its traditional policy of disengagement from the continent and occu-pied itself increasingly with its empire. The United States also withdrew to acertain extent.

The United States and the Treaty of Versailles

Woodrow Wilson, who was a man of great vision, proved to be a poor politi-cian. He needlessly alienated moderate Republicans, whose support heneeded in the Senate. As the treaty started to make its way through theSenate in the fall of 1919, Wilson went on a strenuous speaking tour thatproved too much for him. He suffered a massive stroke in October and never played an active part in public again. Behind the scenes, though, he resistedany modification to the treaty and ordered Democratic senators to voteagainst the version that emerged from the Senate. The treaty was defeatedby a combination of Democrats and hardline Republicans. This meant,among other things, that the United States did not join the League of Nations.

Conclusion

We are left with a number of questions. Did the failure of the United States to join the League of Nations weaken the international order fatally in the inter-war years? Were the German terms that harsh, and were they responsible for the rise of Hitler? I would argue that they were not and that Hitler might wellhave risen to power in any case. In the end, we must also ask ourselveswhether, if we had been peacemakers in 1919, we could have done better.



1. For what has the Treaty of Versailles been blamed?

2. How did Germans react to the Treaty of Versailles?

3. Why did the United States not join the League of Nations?


Boemeke, Manfred, Gerald D. Feldman, and Elisabeth Glaser, eds.The Treaty of Versailles: A Reassessment After 75 Years. Cambridgeand Washington: Cambridge University Press and German Historical

Institute, 1998.

1. Collection of the League of Nations’ purpose, plans, and participants — www.library.northwestern.edu/govpub/collections/leagu/background.html

2. Information on Woodrow Wilson and his political roles — www.gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/bios/28pwils.html

Websites to Visit

Questions

Suggested Reading



59



After the Peace Conference

The League of Nations after World War IThe League of Nations was intended to create a global union of indepen-

dent nation-states agreeing to negotiate and settle disputes with oneanother; guarantee mutual security; and prevent the recurrence of interna-tional conflict by, for example, promoting disarmament. It succeeded insome respects. By December 1920, the League Covenant had beensigned by forty-eight states, though it was never ratified by the UnitedStates, which therefore never joined. Its members successfully resolvedsome disputes—namely, small disagreements between Germany and

Poland, Italy and Greece, and Greece and Bulgaria. The League alsosupervised the mandates awarded to countries to administer territoriestaken from defeated nations and worked to combat such evils as slavery.These successes fed the rising hope that the League would in fact provecapable of maintaining world peace.

Many argue that the League’s lack of its own armed forces to protectLeague members would prove to be its major shortcoming. In addition power-ful nations such as Britain and France proved reluctant to use the League’spowers. Throughout the 1930s, collective security failed when put to the test.

Large powers consistently challenged the authority of the League. Japan didso in 1931, on its way to establishing an empire in China and the Pacific.Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini had dreams of a new Roman empire inthe Mediterranean and Africa, and waged the Abyssinian invasion in 1935.Germany successfully took over Austria in 1938, further demonstrating thatcollective security was a sham.

At the end of World War II, the Allied leaders rejected notions of restoringthe League of Nations. Instead, they created the United Nations, which wasintended to be stronger than the League with a Security Council composed

of the leading powers of 1945. The Security Council was composed of thetraditional powers of Great Britain, France, the United States, the SovietUnion, and China. Many of the goals and methods of the League of Nationswere carried over to the new body, including the role of the secretariat andsome operations later known as peacekeeping operations. The InternationalLabor Organization and the International Court were also brought under thenew organization.

German Discontent after World War I and the Rise of Adolf Hitler

After World War I, the United States suffered economic difficulties—inflationin the 1920s, followed by the 1929 New York stock market crash. In theUnited States by 1932, stock values plummeted to about 20 percent of their previous value. Eleven thousand American banks had failed by 1933. In theyears that followed, unemployment soared to 25–30 percent. As the

American economy failed, so too did that of other nations, especially those of Great Britain and Germany, as the United States was the major creditor andfinancier of Europe’s postwar rebuilding efforts. In the midst of financial A

F T E R T H E P E A C E C

O N F E R E N C E

60



61

depression and national humiliation, Germans looked for a strong new char-acter to lead the country. They ultimately found Adolf Hitler.

The Rise of Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler was born in Austria in 1889 and spent his youth as a fledgling

artist in Vienna. At that time, Vienna was an economically stratified, multi-eth-nic capital. The upper middle class was highly sophisticated and tolerant (for example, of Jews); the smaller bourgeoisie were deeply conservative andpredominantly Catholic; and the growing working class was becomingincreasingly radical. Hitler diligently kept tabs on the political environmentand, like much of the population, grew contemptuous of the Habsburg Empireand of its parliament’s paralysis stemming from conflict between rival ethnicand political groups. He also developed a hatred for the Socialist movement,perhaps because he was bent on separating himself from the working class,despite his lowly social position.

Hitler moved to Munich in 1913 to avoid military service for the HabsburgEmpire. He joined the German army in 1914 and fought in World War I, earn-ing the award of the Iron Cross First Class. When the war ended, Hitler wasresentful of Germany’s defeat and deeply embittered about the terms of thepeace. He was recruited by the Bavarian Army’s Press and Propaganda sec-tion to instruct German troops on German nationalism and anti-socialism. Hewas also sent to watch the German Workers’ Party (DAP), where his oratori-cal skills impressed party members, who soon invited him to join.

Hitler started his political career by becoming a DAP member in Munich in1919. The DAP held extreme nationalist and anti-Semitic views, whichaligned with Hitler’s developing world view that Jews were responsible for thenation’s economic plight and other ills. By 1921, the party had been reorga-nized and renamed the Nationalist Socialist German Workers’ Party(NSDAP), later known as the Nazi Party. In July of that year, Hitler took over its leadership. From 1921 to 1923, Hitler’s self-confidence grew, due in partto the worshipful support of his followers.

In November 1923, Hitler waged an unsuccessful attempt to start an insur-

rection, commonly known as the Beer Hall Putsch, against the Weimar Republic. Following the incident, Hitler was sentenced to five years in prisonfor treason; he served nine months, during which time he wrote his autobiog-raphy Mein Kampf, a book that became the guide of National Socialism.From 1923 to 1928, the party grew slowly, until the economic collapse of 1929 brought it massive public support.

By 1932, the Nazi Party had become Germany’s largest party, and in 1933,President Paul von Hindenburg invited Hitler to become Reich Chancellor.Dubbing himself Führer (leader), Hitler assumed the powers of both chancellor and president when Hindenburg died in 1934. Hitler gained dictatorial powerswith the Enabling Act, and successfully suppressed opposition with the help of his longtime supporters, Heinrich Himmler and Joseph Goebbels. In his firstfew years as Führer, he placed loyal Nazis in positions of power, and alsobegan to translate his anti-Semitic views into governmental action, enactinganti-Jewish measures that would eventually culminate in the Holocaust.



A F T E R T H E P E A C E C

O N F E R E N C E

62

The Dawn of World War II

From his position as Reich Chancellor, Hitler worked to build the “ThirdReich”—a successor to the Holy Roman and Hohenzollern Empires—whichwould last a thousand years and be designed according to his own master plan for European and global domination. Hitler’s power permeated German

life. State governments lost their powers; the Gestapo, Secret Police, crushedany discontent; and even young people were organized into semi-militarygroups and indoctrinated in Nazi ideas. But many Germans willingly followedNazi policies, believing in a rebirth of German strength.

Challenging the Treaty of Versailles

Adolf Hitler both secretly and overtly challenged and violated the Treaty of Versailles. In 1933, he withdrew Germany from the Geneva DisarmamentConference and the League of Nations, and in the mid-1930s, he began to

rearm Germany through conscription and the building of munitions factories.Britain was sympathetic to some of Germany’s demands and signed an Anglo-German treaty in 1935 allowing for an increase in the size of Germany’s navy.Shortly thereafter, Hitler used his new arms to intervene in the Spanish CivilWar in the name of anticommunism and remilitarize the Rhineland in 1936. Hethen began forming the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis with Fascist Italy and Japan.

After taking office on May 28, 1937, the British prime minister NevilleChamberlain initiated a policy of appeasement with Germany that lasted from1937 to 1939. Chamberlain believed that Hitler’s goals were limited to uniting

all German-speaking people. In 1938, Hitler formed an anschluss (Union)between Austria and Germany by annexing Austria at the bequest of AustrianFascists. Schuschnigg, the Austrian Chancellor, wanted Austria to remainindependent. But he was unable to procure the necessary support fromFrance and the Little Entente to oppose Hitler. Shortly thereafter, Hitler demanded self-determination for the largely German areas of Sudetenlandin Czechoslovakia, which was lost by Austria in the Treaty of St. Germain.Britain and France negotiated the 1938 Munich Agreement with Hitler to allowGermany to occupy only the Sudetenland. Hitler promised to respect the inde-

pendence of the remnant of Czechoslovakia. The following year, however,Hitler abrogated the agreement and sent troops into what was left.

While annexing Austria and Czechoslovakia, Hitler formulated plans to takeover Poland as well. Knowing that he would face resistance from the SovietUnion, Hitler sought the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact, which was signedin August of 1939. The Soviet Union had been rebuffed when it previouslysought a collective security agreement with Britain and France. The agreementbetween Germany and the Soviet Union publicly pledged that the two nationswould not attack one another. However, its secret provisions allowed for the divi-

sion of Poland, and gave the Soviet Union control of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia,and Finland. On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland, and onSeptember 3, Britain and France declared war on Germany.



COURSE MATERIALS

63

Suggested Reading for This Course:


Other Books of Interest:

Albrecht-Carrié, René. Italy at the Paris Peace Conference. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1966.

Boemeke, Manfred, Gerald D. Feldman, and Elisabeth Glaser, eds.The Treaty of Versailles: A Reassessment After 75 Years. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press and the German Historical Institute, 1998.

Dockrill, Michael L., and J. Douglas Goold. Peace without Promise: Britain

and the Peace Conferences, 1919–1923 . Hamden, Connecticut: ArchonBooks, 1981.

Ferro, Marc. The Great War, 1914–1918 . Boston: Routledge & K. Paul, 1973.

Fifield, Russell. Woodrow Wilson and the Far East: The Diplomacy of the

Shantung Question. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1968.



Hecksher, August. Woodrow Wilson. New York: Charles Scribners’Sons, 1991.

Herwig, Holger. The Outbreak of World War I: Causes and Responsibilities.5th ed. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Co., 1991.

Jelavich, Barbara. History of the Balkans. 2 vols. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1983.

Kent, Marian, ed. The Great Powers and the End of the Ottoman Empire.

London: G. Allen and Unwin, 1984.Latawski, Paul, ed. The Reconstruction of Poland, 1914–23 . London:

Macmillan, 1992.

Lieven, Anatol. The Baltic Revolution: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the

Path to Independence. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.

Link, Arthur S. Wilson the Diplomatist . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1957.

Macartney, C.A. Hungary and Her Successors: The Treaty of Trianon and Its

Consequences 1919–1937 . London and New York: Oxford University

Press, 1937.Mayer, Arno J. Politics and Diplomacy of Peacemaking: Containment and

Counterrevolution at Versailles, 1918–1919. New York: Knopf, 1967.

Nicolson, Harold. Peacemaking 1919. London: Methuen, 1964.

Sanders, Ronald. The High Walls of Jerusalem: A History of the Balfour

Declaration and the Birth of the British Mandate for Palestine. New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1984.



COURSE MATERIALS

Other Books of Interest (continued):

Sharp, Alan. The Versailles Settlement: Peacemaking in Paris, 1919. London:Macmillan, 1991.

Smith, Michael Llewellyn. Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor 1919–1922 . Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1998.


Walworth, Arthur. Wilson and His Peacemakers: American Diplomacy at the

Paris Peace Conference, 1919. New York: Norton, 1986.

Wandycz, Piotr Stefan. France and Her Eastern Allies, 1919–1925: French-Czechoslovak-Polish Relations from the Paris Peace Conference to

Locarno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1962.

Yapp, M.E. The Making of the Modern Near East, 1792–1923 . London andNew York: Longman, 1987.

These books are available online through www.modernscholar.com

or by calling Recorded Books at 1-800-636-3399.

COURSE MATERIALS